A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[thedoc]

I notice that you don't deny having a wife, and the recent proposal to Lacewing would have been bigamy.

That is most amusing.

I was proposing a virtual marriage, with a honeymoon in cyberspace. It wasn't meant to be amusing, it was meant to be something beautiful.

What is the penalty for virtual bigamy, is it virtual abuse?

[Harbal]

What is the penalty for virtual bigamy, is it virtual abuse?

As far as I know, the law doesn't recognise virtual marriage, therefore, there is no penalty for virtual polygamy. I have now told you everything I know about the subject so please direct any further questions to Google.

[Lacewing]

Atheists that are scrupulous philosophers would understand that the contrary point must be argued.

Indeed. But they don't want to have to do this, so they slide around, excusing themselves on the basis that they aren't actually affirming anything. But of course, they are: they're affirming certain knowledge about something definitely not existing...in this case, God. And it's perfectly reasonable to ask them how they came to such confidence.

At that point, they do one of two things:

1. Reassert petulantly that they never have to prove anything, or

2. Like Dawkins, retreat into what he calls "firm agnosticism," i.e. the statement, "Well, of course I can't prove it, but I'm just expressing a deep doubt that there is any evidence of God."

#1 is obviously an evasion of their rational obligation, and #2 isn't Atheism at all...in fact, it's just a trivial expression of personal lack of information, and obliges no one to agree. So they'll wait until you quit asking them to ante up, then return from the agnostic foxhole to declare their confidence in Atheism again. That's how they keep themselves from thinking about the absurdity and illogic of their position.

If they actually thought for five minutes, they would realize they can't be rational Atheists.

Why is it that all people, including you Mr. Can and you Mr. Fish, DON'T BELIEVE IN ALL SORTS OF THINGS... and it's no big fucking deal? Why is any proof needed to not believe?

You want to define the boundaries as you see them and then require that all perspectives fall within that. If that's not dishonest, then surely it's stupid.

[Harbal]

including you Mr. Can and you Mr. Fish,

Now I won't be able to help but think of tinned tuna every time I see their posts.

You want to define the boundaries as you see them and then require that all perspectives fall within that. If that's not dishonest, then surely it's stupid.

It's both dishonest and stupid but I'd expect nothing less from Mr. Can and Mr. Fish. They both know perfectly well that the only thing all atheists have in common is a world view that doesn't include God. In all other respects "atheists" and "theists" (two stupid words) are just as good or, more likely, bad as each other.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is any proof needed to not believe?

The proof becomes necessary when one makes an affirmation of fact. "A-theism," by definition, affirms the fact of there being "no-gods." And like all affirmations of fact, that is subject to the test of evidence.

A parallel: Tom Cruise, the American actor and poster boy for Scientology, believes there's no such thing as medical illness. He disbelieves in doctors, in medications and in scientific health therapies, and so on. We would simply be mad to say to Tom Cruise, "You don't have to prove your disbelief; because you're only not-believing in something, you don't owe us any evidence of your claim."

It is every bit as unreasonable for an Atheist to expect to be granted his denial of the existence of God without supplying any warrant at all for it.

Not only that, but Atheists like Dawkins are evangelical about it: that is, they are dedicated to spreading the "bad news" of Atheism, and tell anyone who believes differently that they are being irrational, illogical, or unscientific. So is it reasonable to let them rage unopposed? Should we just believe them because they are so adamant? Is that how a sensible person treats a statement? Or do we have a right to ask them to produce the evidence that their "bad news" is true?

If Atheism wishes to advance no fact claims, and if it doesn't evangelize, then it owes us nothing. Its proponents have the liberty to go away and die in the dark if they wish, though I would wish better for them. After all, we all have to live and die by our real beliefs, don't we?

But if they step out into the spotlight and parade themselves as intellectually superior to everybody else, and go about attacking Theists personally, or insulting other people's beliefs the press and the mass media, calling them "unscientific" or, as Dawkins says, "deluded," then we Theists may not lash back; but we have every right to expect them to produce evidence for their patently absurd knowledge claim. If they're being so "scientific," let's see their proof.

Surely, that is the minimum reply they deserve.

[Lacewing]

I notice that you don't deny having a wife, and the recent proposal to Lacewing would have been bigamy.

That is most amusing.

I was proposing a virtual marriage, with a honeymoon in cyberspace. It wasn't meant to be amusing, it was meant to be something beautiful.

And it IS, Harbal!

[Harbal]

It is every bit as unreasonable for an Atheist to expect to be granted his denial of the existence of God without supplying any warrant at all for it.

Only if he's trying to convince others of it, otherwise, he owes no one an explanation.

[Harbal]

it was meant to be something beautiful.

And it IS, Harbal!

People don't realise what a virtually romantic soul I am.

[thedoc]

What is the penalty for virtual bigamy, is it virtual abuse?

As far as I know, the law doesn't recognise virtual marriage, therefore, there is no penalty for virtual polygamy. I have now told you everything I know about the subject so please direct any further questions to Google.

What? Is Google a Bigamist?

[Harbal]

What? Is Google a Bigamist?

Again, I'm asking you, politely, not to direct any more questions on this subject at me.

[Lacewing]

Why is any proof needed to not believe?

The proof becomes necessary when one makes an affirmation of fact.

If you want to claim that I'm making an "affirmation of fact", that is YOUR interpretation and trip. I don't have to prove what I don't believe. I see no reason to believe there is a male god being, just as I see no reason to believe there are purple tuna fish swimming through the air. Without reason, there is no value for me.

A parallel: Tom Cruise, the American actor and poster boy for Scientology, believes there's no such thing as medical illness. He disbelieves in doctors, in medications and in scientific health therapies, and so on.

I can see that perspective. I can see that what we think we know -- and what we think the rules and boundaries are -- is an illusion.

We would simply be mad to say to Tom Cruise, "You don't have to prove your disbelief; because you're only not-believing in something, you don't owe us any evidence of your claim."

Why can't he believe and not believe as he sees fit?

It is every bit as unreasonable for an Atheist to expect to be granted his denial of the existence of God without supplying any warrant at all for it.

Why must a person be "granted denial" for not believing in something that they see as totally made up? Your claim that non-theists don't supply any warrant for it at all is completely deceptive. If you are unable to hear and process the magnitude of valid and logical reasoning provided by non-theists, then perhaps you should be honest about your own NEED to believe and your absolute DENIAL of all else.

Not only that, but Atheists like Dawkins are evangelical about it: that is, they are dedicated to spreading the "bad news" of Atheism, and tell anyone who believes differently that they are being irrational, illogical, or unscientific. So is it reasonable to let them rage unopposed? Should we just believe them because they are so adamant? Is that how a sensible person treats a statement? Or do we have a right to ask them to produce the evidence that their "bad news" is true?

What do you think non-theists are going through all the time? Having theism pledged, and printed on money, and widely broadcast, and represented by crosses and rules and intolerance/prejudice all over the place, and often rammed down non-theist throats with accusations of non-morality, and threats of damnation? Is it, as you say, "reasonable to let them (theists) rage unopposed? Should we just believe them because they are so adamant?" How do you think the non-theist perspective should be expressed... that MATCHES the way the theist perspective is being expressed? Are you not as "guilty" of attacking non-theists as you claim they are guilty of attacking you?

If Atheism wishes to advance no fact claims, and if it doesn't evangelize, then it owes us nothing.

So does theism owe proof under these conditions?

After all, we all have to live and die by our real beliefs, don't we?

What is the significance of the word "real"?

I'm not afraid to die -- I find human creations to be the "scary stuff" -- but I'll continue to play along with it while I'm here. I don't feel ultimately defined by what we humans think. Maybe you do?

But if they (atheists) step out into the spotlight and parade themselves as intellectually superior to everybody else,

Oh please, Mr. Can, this is EXACTLY what you do on your own stage. Your communications are usually dripping with contempt for non-theists, and self-glorification for yourself. Can you honestly not see it?

It's natural that we ALL try to inspire/compel others with "truths" as we EACH see them at any given time. What's interesting is to search for the underlying reason for that in each situation. Is it to control/manipulate... or to be proclaimed "right"... or to inspire broader thinking? Isn't that underlying reason what's REALLY at work?

we have every right to expect them to produce evidence for their patently absurd knowledge claim. If they're being so "scientific," let's see their proof.

Surely, that is the minimum reply they deserve.

I can see what you're saying... but you, yourself, do not provide the "minimum reply" that non-theists deserve to their questions/points made of you. From the non-theist perspective, you ignore and avoid and twist. This is why I said in another post that our different perspectives are like speaking different languages. We cannot hear or understand each other -- nor do each other's perspectives make any sense or have value. So now what?

[Necromancer]

It is every bit as unreasonable for an Atheist to expect to be granted his denial of the existence of God without supplying any warrant at all for it.

Only if he's trying to convince others of it, otherwise, he owes no one an explanation.

I think Atheism and its leaders have to assume responsibility because Atheism is indeed a movement that demands "scientific" schools and where all forms of religion are banned (from these schools, demanding religious "stuff" in the sparetime). There is also the demand for all states to quit supporting religions by subsidies. This can have far-reaching consequences.

The very effect of Atheism then, no matter how innocent a claim ("I only believe there is no God"), is that there is no existing God ("there is no God") which takes on a different path that carries no particular humility to the religions. This is bad, IMO.

The mere common ground by one view through becoming adolescents and adults is that the very belief on God is left open to ponder, but that moral education and responsibility remains, as is granted by most Western (modern, moderate) religious people and the secular Humanists!

Now, where are you, Richard Dawkins and Atheists by Atheism?

[Harbal]

Atheism is indeed a movement that demands "scientific" schools and where all forms of religion are banned

If there is an organised "movement" called The Atheists, or something, I have no knowledge of or sympathy with them. I and all the people I know who do not include God in there picture of the World/Universe are not members of such an organisation and do not involve ourselves in activities intended to suppress anything religious. If this thread is only directed at organised "movements" of atheist activists then forget everything I've said, as I would not have taken part in it, had I realised.

I do think Religions are treated with too much respect, however. I think it's okay to believe what you like but I don't see why everyone else should have to pander to it.

[Lacewing]

Atheism is indeed a movement that demands "scientific" schools and where all forms of religion are banned

If there is an organised "movement" called The Atheists, or something, I have no knowledge of or sympathy with them. I and all the people I know who do not include God in there picture of the World/Universe are not members of such an organisation and do not involve ourselves in activities intended to suppress anything religious. If this thread is only directed at organised "movements" of atheist activists then forget everything I've said, as I would not have taken part in it, had I realised.

I was baffled by that "revelation" too, Harbal. I had no idea there was such a movement... nor that atheism has leaders. Do they have a flag too?

I don't care what anyone believes, and I'm not interested in "suppressing" anyone. I am only interested in NOT BEING SUPPRESSED by another's beliefs. If theists believe their suppression of others is being suppressed, then that's kind of nuts. And if they think that people who are fighting not to be suppressed by other's beliefs is some kind of organized evil movement, then that's kind of nuts too.

I would say to theists: Stop thinking you're right for everyone else.

I do think Religions are treated with too much respect, however. I think it's okay to believe what you like but I don't see why everyone else should have to pander to it.

I agree. Things are WAY OUT OF BALANCE in that regard -- and it's only natural and healthy to try to restrict religion to its own turf, instead of having it run rampant across the land. Because for many of us, it looks like an unchecked form of rigid thinking, and in some cases, insanity. There is NO REASON that it needs to be woven into foundations that support MANY perspectives.

[Harbal]

Do they have a flag too?

They used to have one but I believe bob evenson burned it.